Debates of May 4th, 1995

Interprovincial Trade

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make this very clear. This week, when we were discussing cuts in social transfers, the Minister of Finance rose in the House and said that they were going to change the bill, that it is not what they wanted to do, although that is what it says in the bill.

Today, the Minister of Industry tells us they do not want to cut social transfers to the provinces, although that is what it says.

Would the minister agree that the retaliatory measures provided in Bill C-88 are so broad that they would allow the federal government to interfere in disputes that are, first and foremost, a matter between two provinces, disputes that are none of its

business, so that the federal government would be able to cut social transfers to the provinces as a retaliatory measure?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make very clear what the federal government's position has been throughout the negotiations last year on the internal trade agreement and as we bring forward the legislation which will implement that agreement with respect to the federal level.

We have entirely and totally pursued a process which is consensual. All 10 provinces signed the accord last July 18. The new Government of Quebec stressed at the one meeting which has been held since the most recent Quebec election that it is fully supportive of the internal trade agreement.

This has been a process in which some have criticized the federal government for not using powers which it is said we might have. The fact is we prefer to see the regulation of internal trade, interprovincial trade, affected by agreement among the partners to Confederation. That is why we signed an internal trade agreement. That is the policy of the government and there is no further clarification required.

Employment Centres

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In a document dated March 23, the Department of Human Resources Development brings into question all programs and services provided to the unemployed, notably by closing down many employment centres in Quebec and Canada.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm his department's intention to reduce direct services to the unemployed, and is this a new, concrete initiative by the federal government to fight poverty?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we established a new program that will provide direct services to many unemployed workers across Canada. It is very important that the Department of Human Resources Development reform the unemployment insurance system.

I want to assure the hon. member and all her colleagues that the reason behind the important changes resulting from the reform was to provide more effective and advanced services to the unemployed, and particularly to foster co-operation among all stakeholders, including unions, business people, provinces and municipalities, in order to fight unemployment and poverty.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the minister to understand that we know about a project that will considerably reduce the number of employment centres throughout Canada and Quebec. We also know that there will be major layoffs in late May and that many places will have to make do with automated job banks.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that unemployed workers outside the major centres will be the main victims of this reduction in services, as many of them will no longer have access to expert staff and will have to make do with machines?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting highly agitated over a decision that has not yet been made. She has built in all kinds of assertions, assumptions, propositions, hypotheses, none of which she can bear out by any fact.

The reality is that of course we are reorganizing. With the advent of new technologies by which we can share information much more effectively between centres, by decentralizing our programs so that we can work in partnership with local groups and not have to deliver through central bureaucracies we believe we can achieve a much more effective delivery of services to the people who need them.

I am surprised. Here is an hon. member who in the past has given us grand declarations about the need to devolve and decentralize to community control and community operations. We are doing it and now she is complaining.

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to National Sea Products, 25 of its fish processing workers have left full time jobs for assistance under the Atlantic groundfish strategy. That is TAGS, the government's $1.9 billion temporary aid package for unemployed fishermen and unemployed plant workers. National Sea alerted the human resources development department of this development on February 16 but has yet to receive a response from the federal government.

My question for the minister is: How many of the 25 National Sea Products employees in Lunenburg were accepted into TAGS and what is the minister's response to this unsettling development?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Let there be no misunderstanding. Those who voluntarily quit their jobs are not eligible for TAGS. If they do so, I will disqualify them immediately.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that it would appear easier to qualify for assistance under TAGS than it is for unemployment insurance in Atlantic Canada. The fisheries workers with full time jobs are being induced to leave gainful private sector employment to take a chance on the government sponsored TAGS lottery. This effect is precisely the opposite of what TAGS was supposed to deliver.

What is the minister's explanation for how this program, after all the time and thought that was supposedly given to it, could be having precisely the opposite effect of what was intended?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question would be greatly helped if he knew something about the program and did not simply get his information from the front page of a central Canada newspaper.

Up to the first nine months of operations we have received over 52,000 applications. Thirteen thousand have been rejected because they were not eligible. It is not an easy get-on. Applicants must demonstrate a long term attachment to the fishery, which is a very clear requirement. They have to have actual weeks of employment in the fishery to determine it. If there are other criteria that are objected to, we will not accept it.

I have just told the hon. member that I will not accept abuse of the program. If anyone tries to get around the rules and tries to apply for TAGS when they are not eligible, I will disqualify them from the program. If the hon. member has any actual information, I would be glad to receive it.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister's statements are accurate, one wonders how this program can already be $400 million underfunded because the demand is higher than what was expected. When this program was announced, the minister said it would serve as a test case for the government's new approach to social assistance from dependence on government to independence through training.

Price Waterhouse and now National Sea Products have provided evidence that this Ottawa originated social megaproject approach to unemployment simply does not work. The minister has been listening to the voices of 1960s Liberals and tired old bureaucrats when he should have been listening to the people of Atlantic Canada and to fresh thinking on social and economic development.

Given the problem identified by National Sea Products and given the advice by the government's own paid consultants, will the minister commit to rethinking completely his entire approach to the social and economic crisis in Atlantic Canada?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, this question comes from an hon. member whose party just recently put out a statement that it would eliminate about $12 billion from social programs. That would force most of the people in Atlantic Canada into abject and utter poverty.

The program has been in place for nine months. In that nine months we have received 52,000 applications; 40,000 people have been processed; 26,000 have been given basic benefits; 15,000 are on well-designed training programs; and over 1,000 are working on conservation resource projects. This is in the first nine months.

We do not deny it was an enormous and difficult task to try to rescue an entire industry that has collapsed in that region, but at least we are trying. We are working with the people of Atlantic Canada. We are relying on their resourcefulness, not the kind of negative 18th century thinking of the hon. member.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

In this House yesterday, in answer to my question regarding Colonel Oehring's report, the Minister of National Defence claimed that he had already answered the same question in reply to the Reform Party. Once again, the minister was mistaken. The Reform Party was concerned with Brigadier-General Jeffries' report, while I was concerned with the Oehring report, which stated that military personnel were consulting chaplains and psychiatrists more often and that a lack of leadership had resulted in an increase in the number of suicides.

How can the minister so casually dismiss this consequential report, confusing it with another?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member should go back a little further in the record. This report was made public some time last fall.

I know the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, the Reform critic, referred to this in the House. I did address those concerns either in question period or in debate. That does not mean to say we minimize some of the concerns in Colonel Oehring's report, which was not scientific but which did outline some of the difficult problems faced by members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unlikely that this was discussed last autumn, because Colonel Oehring's report was only issued in December 1994 while the Reform Party's questions date back to March 15, 1995.

Will the minister admit that, in this report, of which he was obviously unaware yesterday and still is today, one of his colonels states that one of the problems facing the armed forces is that the minister is not fulfilling his responsibilities?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, not to argue about specific terms, but when one talks about fall in this country it usually ends December 21, the first day of winter.

The report was unscientific, some findings by a colonel who had some concerns about problems of morale in the forces. It was made available to the commander of land forces. We have looked at it. Some of the concerns are being addressed, as are the concerns addressed by Brigadier-General Jeffries in his memo.

Members Of Parliament Pensions

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will not be fooled by the government's half hearted attempt at MP pension reform because really nothing has changed.

MPs pensions will still be unacceptably high and Canadians will still be forced to top up the trough to the tune of $7 million annually.

The President of the Treasury Board said these changes will save taxpayers over $3 million a year. That would just about cover the Deputy Prime Minister's pension under the new plan.

Why did the government not replace the entire MP pension scheme with a more realistic private plan such as others live with outside these walls?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is being dealt with during debate but I categorically reject the statement of the hon. member that I will not be covered under the new plan. I will be covered under the new plan.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was my point. She is covered under the new plan and apparently seems to be proud of it.

The government has released me from its obscenely lavish pension plan. I am no longer trapped at the trough but I would like to take a few members of the class of '88 with me because they are also able to opt out.

Not only has the government allowed me but has also allowed anyone who was elected in the class of '88 to opt out. That means the ministers of finance, health, transport and industry can all take their trotters out of the trough, hold their snouts high and opt out-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Of course the Chair will grant virtually as much latitude as it can in the questions. The hon. member realizes today the bill on MP pensions is under discussion. I am trying to hear the question. The preamble was skirting dangerously close to the bill.

If the question is general enough I would like to hear it now.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask it now. Why will the government not open the doors to all 295 members of the House so they can make the same choice, do the right thing and opt out of this obscene plan?

Government Spending

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yesterday, we could read in The Citizen that the federal government is about to host an international conference on tobacco farming in the third world and that this conference will be held at a beautiful resort in the Italian Alps, thousands of kilometres away from the Canadian capital.

Does the minister find that it makes sense, at a time when cuts are made left and right in the health sector, for Health Canada to spend nearly $1 million on a conference on tobacco farming in the third world?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has been the victim of misinformation.

On the whole issue of the tobacco conference, the government has joined with other governments to give money to the International Development Research Centre looking at the issue of tobacco use in developing countries.

The government has given that group $700,000 over a period of three years. The group is now holding its meeting to fund

raise. The World Bank and other international organizations will be at the meeting to contribute more money to the fund.

It is being held in Italy because the site has been donated by the Rockefeller Foundation. It is being held in Europe because most of the members will come from the eastern European bloc countries and it will be cheaper for them to attend.

Health Canada has not been asked to attend. No Health Canada officials are going.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the federal government reduce medical research funding and transfer payments, forcing the provinces to cut back on health care, while at the same time wasting $1 million to host a conference in the Italian Alps?